1. The plaintiff alleges that a certain caligulah which regulated the supply of water for irrigation to his land had fallen into disrepair, and the Government officers, being bound to repair it, failed to do so. In consequence of this failure his land received no water and his crop was lost. He sued for compensation to the extent of the value of the crop which, but for the failure of the water-supply, he might have got.

2. Both Courts below have considered the question whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the Government, and though the written statement does not distinctly raise this question, we have dealt with it. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that the District Munsif was right and that the Government is not under an obligation with regard to each individual ryot to repair irrigation works whenever they require repair. There is no case, so far as we know, in which a claim like the present has ever been made in India, whether against the Government or against a Zemindar, though opportunities for such claims have been sufficiently frequent ever since a system of irrigation works was inaugurated in the country. The Courts in this Presidency have held